Emory People Generally Talking Amongst Ourselves

I'm planning to take the Dec. test and apply the first week of Jan. I am a URM and I have 1-2 years of experience working as a paralegal and a host of other soft's (sign language interpreter, mentorship programs, etc.) I went to GA State for undergrad and ended with a 3.3. (I had some serious issues in 2nd & 3rd year that killed my stellar gpa). I have been pretesting in the 158-162 range. Do I have a shot? I will be applying to GA State just in case, but I really want Emory. I had an opportunity to go to Emory undergrad but I let people around me talk me out of it. I wish that I had made different decision but I cant do much about it now. Don't get me wrong, I loved GA State, but I just wonder what if...

Seriously though, that's right. Check out the LSN graph from last year. 164 means gameover, unless it's 3.9+. (Although, it's just a dead end WL, not a straight up reject. But then, we can presume that the numbers will move up slightly, as they always do.)

Not every applicant used LSN. The median is 165 for your class. Unless you are suggesting that half of the class are URMs?

For 0L's, LWRAP is Emory's writing and research class. This year it's worth 2 credits and we take it both in the Fall and Spring. It's, well, time consuming, to say the least. It's also one of those classes that varies wildly from school to school. At some schools, it isn't even graded. But it's pretty important since you get writing samples from it and learn how to research (dur, yeah, that's what it's called.) Currently, Emory is considering switching it up big time. One rumor is that Legal Methods will be combined with LWRAP. Legal Methods is a course where we learn all of the theories behind the law, basically. Learn how to interpret everything from cases to statutes. We even spent a class or two on legal economics and philosophy. Again, Legal Methods is not something every school offers, or if they do offer it, it is drastically different from other schools. I honestly wish I had taken Legal Methods in undergrad, or at least prior to law school.

so you think the school purposefully didn't let in better qualified applicants with 164's so they could boost their median up a point? maybe they let in more 162's and 163's because they knew they werent going to have to worry about a 162 or 163 median, but they'd been stuck on 164 for a few years and it was time to move on? the school knows perfectly well that a 164/3.7 is just as qualified as a 165/3.4, but rejects the former and gives the latter $60,000...it makes sense actually. sounds like the kind of thing a school like emory would do...

so you think the school purposefully didn't let in better qualified applicants with 164's so they could boost their median up a point? maybe they let in more 162's and 163's because they knew they werent going to have to worry about a 162 or 163 median, but they'd been stuck on 164 for a few years and it was time to move on? the school knows perfectly well that a 164/3.7 is just as qualified as a 165/3.4, but rejects the former and gives the latter $60,000...it makes sense actually. sounds like the kind of thing a school like emory would do...

I don't know if that's exactly what happened last year, but who knows. I sure don't think they preferred 63s or 62s over 164s, though. Seems like they just drew a bright line and threw around enough money for an adequate yield of 165 and 166 (although our class is a lot smaller than the 2L class; I heard the 2Ls were over-enrolled, but obviously a smaller student body could also be seen as a rankings play. Or it could be that even the money couldn't get Emory a full class of 165s and 166s).

Kind of sucks, I guess, especially, like you said, if somebody's a 164 3.8 and could be holding his own here. But the thought process seems fairly legitimate; waitlist some decent candidates with a view to move medians and attract higher-quality applicants in the future. Can't knock the hustle, I suppose. And using medians to increase applicant quality is probably something that most of the 20ish-ranked try to do, if that's how you mean "a school like Emory."

Anyway, again, best of luck to all those applicants this year. I've got a good friend from college who applied with a 164, and I've got my fingers crossed for him.

And hey! LWRAP is over!

Haha, I know Emory's not the only one. They all play the numbers game. But it's worth pointing out that it's not hopeless for applicants with sub 165's, even if they're not URM's -- some of them must have found a way to sneek in. It's always possible that a few people will lie about their LSAT to their friends if it seems like everyone else is a couple points higher then them. Who knows?

I wish I had a link, but there was a professor a year or two ago that did a study on the US News rankings and discovered that at the high end of LSAT scores (90th percentile and better), and increase of a point or two in median does very little to improve a schools rankings. The reason for this is US News uses percentiles as opposed to LSAT raw score, and the difference in percentiles at the high end are very slight (164 is 91ist ish 165 is 92nd ish I think). They also do some regression which waters down the impact as well. In fact, the author argued that if a school wanted to game the rankings, they would be better served by admitting more high GPA students than high LSAT students.

A previous poster mentioned that the smaller class may have something to do with higher numbers and that is a rankings play as well. I think there is some validity to that as well.

Another spin: the US News Rankings are a somewhat self fulfilling prophecy. When I applied, Emory was either just at 25 , or maybe 27 or so. In April of that year (2007), Emory went up to 22. Last year we were 22 as well. I think this slight jump might have increased the quality of the applicant pool, which in turn presumably raises the scores. Also, class of 2010 (my class) was the first where they started handing out very nice scholarships. Class of 2011 scholarships are ridiculous. I think this might also increase quality of applicants (which of course is the goal).

Honestly, I think the difference in "quality of student" doesn't vary at all from someone who got a 164 vs. 165 vs. 169. But schools have to draw the line somewhere I suppose, and for Emory I guess that line is moving a little higher on the LSAT scale.

I don't think Emory changed its scholarship scheme to increase rankings. I think they threw out tons of half-tuition scholarships previously and ended up with 50 more students enrolling than expected. By giving out $90k scholarships to fewer students they were able to more accurately predict the class size. And sure enough, we're very close to that 220 student ideal for Emory.

the school knows perfectly well that a 164/3.7 is just as qualified as a 165/3.4, but rejects the former and gives the latter $60,000...it makes sense actually. sounds like the kind of thing a school like emory would do...

Is the 164 as qualified? I guess it depends how you weigh the LSAT, doesn't it?

(although our class is a lot smaller than the 2L class; I heard the 2Ls were over-enrolled, but obviously a smaller student body could also be seen as a rankings play. Or it could be that even the money couldn't get Emory a full class of 165s and 166s).

The school shot up in the rankings around the same time as the accept deadline for the 2L class. They got more acceptances than they anticipated. Happens all the time. We were lucky to hold steady in the rankings. We should shoot up again this year, depending on how other schools did comparatively. The 1L class raised the LSAT median a point, and GPA by a bit as well, so I am cautiously expecting it.

I don't think Emory changed its scholarship scheme to increase rankings. I think they threw out tons of half-tuition scholarships previously and ended up with 50 more students enrolling than expected. By giving out $90k scholarships to fewer students they were able to more accurately predict the class size. And sure enough, we're very close to that 220 student ideal for Emory.

Nah. We over-shot the class of 2010 because Emory was accepting assuming a yield that comes with being ranked 27th or whatever we were at back then, and got a yield that comes with being ranked 22nd. Last year they were assuming a yield for 22nd, and pretty much nailed it. The scholarships are a concept stolen from GW, they're designed to baby-step up the medians.

And RPP is right, the LSAT and GPA are essentially mathematically inconsequential compared to other factors in the rankings. HOWEVER, the school has little control over the peer/practicioner ratings, and, in-fact, those rankings may even be influenced by the previous year's overall rankings.